You know who's NOT in baseball's Hall of Fame?
Abner Doubleday, that's who's not. Even though the Hall is in Cooperstown because, one glimmering day in 1839, young Abner supposedly laid out the rules and dimensions of our national pastime along the shores of the Glimmerglass.
Tommy rot, as it turned out. Doubleday was quite a character, sort of the Forrest Gump of the 19th century, a soldier, mystic, and bibliophile with an uncanny knack for being around when anything of significance was going on.
He read Sanskrit, corresponded with Ralph Waldo Emerson, attended White House seances with Mary Todd Lincoln, was at Fort Sumter when the first shot of the Civil War was fired, held the line at Gettysburg—and took the train back there with Lincoln, when he gave the Gettysburg Address.But he did NOT invent the game of baseball.
One of Doubleday's best friends, one A.G. Mills, the man who arranged his funeral and got him buried at Arlington, admitted that he never heard Abner so much as mention baseball. Why was this significant? Because Mills was the president of the National League for about 20 years.
In a brief autobiographical sketch, Doubleday himself wrote that, "In my outdoor sports, I was addicted to—"—wait for it!—"topographical work."
Not even the HOF could convince itself to admit Topographical Work Doubleday, despite his being the entire excuse for its location in a charming, upstate town.
Pretty much everything else everyone has said here about the Hall is also true—and more! The HOF is indeed controlled by the evil Clark family, a bunch of exasperating, right-wing zealots whose own main addiction is...polo. And the standards for just who should be in the Hall and why have been wildly inconsistent over the years, which...is just fine, as I see it.
Hell, it keeps the hot stove arguments coming. When was the last time you heard a passionate discussion over who should or should not be in the NFL's Hall of Fame, in Canton, Ohio?
Sure, the sportswriters who first select the Famers have generally made a hash of it. Even worse has been the follow-up, Veterans Committee, which should really be renamed The Old Cronies and Drinking Buddies Committee, and which is responsible for the likes of Rabbit Maranville, holder of the all-time record for choking up, being in Cooperstown.
It may be true, as the late Sen. Moynihan claimed, that everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts. But everyone sure as hell has their own concept of the Hall of Fame.Some want it to be JUST the immortals. Ruth, Wagner, Mays, Aaron, Mantle, etc. Nothing below the really, truly special.
Others have seriously proposed a multi-ringed Hall of Fame, with the all-time greats in some very special Valhalla, and the lesser greats in lower rings. But this seems more than a little mean-spirited—and would no doubt open new disputes.
Some even want to remove the unworthy selections from the Hall. But this seems unbelievably cruel to those who were chosen and their friends and families—such as the aforementioned Rabbit Maranville, seen below at the age of 39.
(No, he really is 39 here, you can tell by that whacko arm patch honoring some sort of Pilgrim anniversary. Grizzle much?)
Anyhoo, no matter what system you adopt, the Hall always has and always will start to bleed around the edges.
"Are you saying Dopey Dildox is no Fibber McGee? Why, don't you know that statistics are/are not the whole story?"
Which, again, is fine by me.
But the way selections to the Hall have generally evolved, you get in if you were, indeed, an immortal, or if you were pretty damned good, for a very long time. Which I also have to admit has its merits. Hence the selections this year of Scott Rolen and Fred McGriff.
Much has been written here about whothehellis Scott Rolen, and how if HE'S in the Hall, then why not Graig "Puff" Nettles?
Well, I love me some Graig Nettles. To death. Both he and Rolen were power hitters with magic gloves at third base, both of whom played for a very long time (Nettles, 22 years in the bigs, Rolen, 17). And in the course of those long careers, Rolen compiled an OPS that was over 100 points HIGHER than our Graig's, .855-.750, and won 8 Gold Gloves to Nettles' 2.
In short, a typical Nettles season over his whole career, projected out to 162 games, was 20 doubles, 2 triples, 23 homers, 79 RBI, and a .248 BA. The same for Rolen was 41 doubles, 3 triples, 25 home runs, 102 RBI, and .281.
So there we are. Rolen was indeed a model of consistency—outstanding consistency, year after year. So was McGriff, who we lost in perhaps the worst single trade in Yankees history.
Did you know, for instance, that McGriff's career OPS was 56 points higher than Don Mattingly's, .886 to .830? I didn't, until I looked it up.
Donnie Baseball is one of those guys on the HOF cusp. Six seasons that were Grade-A, Cooperstown-quality great...and another 5-6 that were perfectly respectable, along with 9 Gold Gloves at a position not considered that important.
Then there's Roger Maris, for whose induction there has been quite a clamor of late. But the Rajah had two great seasons and 3-4 good ones, before his career was foreshortened by injury. By almost all HOF standards over the years, that doesn't cut it.
The real specter haunting Cooperstown these days? The fact that—just like the rest of baseball—it still has yet to come to terms with juicing.
In fact, the compromise the Hall and its voters have stumbled into seems about as stupid as possible. Admitted juicer Mike Piazza gets in—after enduring a "penalty" of four years of delays. Admitted juicer Big Papi is in, apparently on the personality vote, while the likes of Manny Ramirez and Albert Belle—even more deserving, when it comes to the stats—will probably never get in.
And then, of course, there's the likes of Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and that other, certain third baseman, the man, the myth, the human satyr known as A-Rod.Sigh.
What is there to do about a problem like Rodriguez?
I dunno, but SOME standard would be appreciated, lest the Hall become simply, Players We Like the Bestest.
What the failure to deal—still!—with steroids does is occlude the candidacies of other, deserving players.
Years ago, Bernabe Williams, another just-miss Haller, made the provocative argument that players like he—who went pretty much their whole careers playing AGAINST juicers, without juicing themselves—should make the Hall.After all, without having to take on all those cheaters, their stats would be both relatively and absolutely better. Right?
It's a difficult argument to refute. And it makes me think of the one former Yankee who has really been done dirt by MLB's refusal to think straight about steroids.
That man is Jor-ge Posada, who for about ten years was widely acknowledged to be the second-best catcher in the American League.
The man widely acknowledged to be the best? Widely acknowledged juicer—and Hall of Famer—Ivan Rodriguez.
Jorge has never been so much as accused as juicing himself. And even so, his career OPS was FIFTY points higher than I-Rod's, .848-.798. (Amazing, when you consider the wind resistance that Posada's ears alone must have created running down to first base.)
So sing me no Rogers, no Graigs or Donnies. The man we need to get in the Hall is Jorge Posada!
(Of course, he was no Rabbit Maranville.)
9 comments:
Really good post. As always.
Left out one important thing/concept.
I was there recently and was left with the overwhelming understanding that...
The Hall is an industry now. Supporting stores, hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, summer baseball tournaments, local farms...you name it.
If the Hall only accepted the truly elite they would put in a couple of guys every few years. Can't run an industry that way. They need inductees to keep the whole place relevant and the whole region earning.
I don't really have a problem with this. So it's not Valhalla, more like Elmsford. (That's a Westchester joke) Speaking of Valhalla, it is aptly names since the town mostly consists of enormous graveyards serving the NY metropolitan area.
Back to the Hall...
I'm OK with enshrining the greats even if they don't rise to the standard of the Greatest Of All Time. It's the Hall of FAME not the Hall of GODS. So let's get Donnie Baseball in there. Not sure about Jorge.
If you ask me, "Was Donnie Baseball great?" I say "Hell Yeah!" If you ask me, "Was Jorge great?" I answer, "I liked him as lot."
So what I'm saying is, asking me should be the standard. I promise to have no fewer than three inductees a year. I'll let them know where they can send the check.
Thanks, Doug! I've been up there a couple times myself, though not for many years. But I mostly agree with you about what the Hall should be.
And yeah, I don't much have a problem with it, either. There was never any real reason for the Hall to be in Cooperstown, save for economic development. If you really want to go to the birthplace of baseball, you should put the Hall right here in Manhattan...a borough that's plenty rich already, and doesn't need anything like that.
But if you're talkin' Jorge and Donnie Baseball...
Posada's OPS is actually 18 points higher than Mattingly's .848 to .830. And that's in 17 years, playing the most debilitating position in the sport, as opposed to first base.
Take it further, to WAR, and Posada is ahead, 51.2 to 33.5.
I know, I know. I've been saying for years how suspect a stat WAR is. More evidence of it here, with Mattingly having a lifetime, -6.2 dWAR (defensive WAR).
Nonsense, of course. But WAS Donnie better than Jorge?...
...I hear what you're saying, Doug.
When I saw Mattingly play, in the mid-1980s, I thought this was how it must have felt watching Lou Gehrig play. I never felt anything like that with Jorge. I never thought he looked as spectacular as even Sanchez was, in his first couple years.
But this is what we're dealing with when it comes to the likes of Scott Rolen and Fred McGriff. Constant, steady excellence, year in and year out.
It's one way Bill James ranks ballplayers: peak value and (I think) career value.
According to his criteria, for instance, at his peak value, Mickey Mantle was better than Willie Mays. Over a whole career, the nod goes to Mays.
At his very peak, from 1984-86, when Donnie won a batting title and an MVP (and probably deserved 2 of each), he was close to GOAT status. Averaging 104 runs scored, 219 hits, 2 triples, 30 homers, an amazing 48 doubles, 123 RBI, and a .340 BA.
WOW, huh? But Donnie—just 25 in 1986—rarely approached those numbers again.
He played until 1995—but hit more than 20 homers and drove in over 100 runs only once after 1987, and hit over .300 only once after 1989. He was done at 34.
Jorge hit .338 at the age of 36, in 2007, and had a crucial hit in winning the 2009 World Series for the Yanks—one of 5 rings he won. He won the Silver Slugger at his position 5 times—as opposed to only 3 for Donnie Baseball.
Posada might not have flashed, but he had staying power. Donnie, alas, did not.
Posada has always been minimized in the Last Yankee Dynasty.
Like Shemp in the Three Stooges.
Plus, he was a switch hitter.
Great post, as always.
It's mind-boggling that Jorge hit .338 at age 36. It's mind-boggling that he hit .338, ever. Guys hitting .338 seems like a fever dream these days. And a catcher? Come on, you're joshing me.
No wonder I'm consistently disappointed by today's players overall. They can't hit. They can't play every day or practically every day. They go down for hangnails. They pull muscles and tweak gonads at the drop of a sinker.
This is not the baseball I used to know. Bigger bases aren't gonna help, either.
Thanks, JM. And my fear is that bigger bases could be a bigger fiasco than anyone is now anticipating, throwing off the basic dimensions of the game.
"When I saw Mattingly play, in the mid-1980s, I thought this was how it must have felt watching Lou Gehrig play. I never felt anything like that with Jorge."
Indeed, Hoss, this is the very essence of it! Jorge never really had that year where you thought that this guy is one of the very best players in the game. Therefore, until recently, I never thought of Posada as a Hall of Famer.
But you've convinced that Posada does belong in the Hall. For all the reasons cited. And especially if Rolen gets in the Hall, I don't see how Mattingly, Bernie, Posada, Nettles, Guidry don't get in.
In my view, the real test for the Hall of Fame should be if the player had at least several years or so where they were amongst the best players in the game. If they dominated the game during that span, for their position. And if they won at least one World Series championship during that time, that's even more reason to put 'em in the Hall. And if they won several WS championships during that time, even more reason! Even if they didn't win a championship, if they dominated their position or were one of the very best players in the game for at least three years, (ex: Mattingly), they should get in.
If you're not going to put in guys who won three, four championships, while dominating the game at their respective positions, then exactly who the hell are those guys going into the Hall? Those guys who hit 500 homers whilst playing 20 years of forgettable baseball on some perennial last place team? That's not my idea of celebrating excellence and greatness.
Now, I don't begrudge that a guy who hit 500 homers over 20 years gets in the Hall, despite never really being in a pennant race. I just think that a lot of guys who were great for a certain span of time and won championships should get in.
The problem with comparing career stats is that players usually have years where they were developing, or injured, or retrogressing, and all of those years get lumped together into one single statistic. See Bernie Williams, for example. He had about five years where he was developing. (The first few of those years, he was terrible.) Then he had maybe 6-7 years of greatness. Then he had four years of injury filled regression. Should he be remembered for the first few years, when he sucked, or the last few years, when he sucked even worse? No, I remember him for the great years that he had in the middle of his career, when he lead the Yankees to four World Championships. Those are the years should put him in the Hall of Fame.
Add to that the fact that certain players played during eras where stats seemed pumped up, as opposed to those players who played during eras where power stats were down. See Rolen and Nettles, for instance.
Trying to compare career stats is an exercise in futility. And it doesn't lead to good decisions over who gets in the Hall or not.
Post a Comment